THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY:
THE SEARCH
FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY

BY

JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY

INTRODUCTION

On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard
fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine
Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a
nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H.
R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct
impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the
shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon
administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4th, the shootings have certainly
come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the
country during the Vietnam War era.

In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a
voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4th and their aftermath.
Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or
inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970;
Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and
Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent
years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980;
Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage
of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be
considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970 at Kent State
University.(1)

Despite the substantial literature which exists on the
Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events
of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth
Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses,(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4
accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State
University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear
gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of
fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who
had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this
short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist;
(2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of
the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female
student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause,
had been part of the demonstration.

This article is an attempt to deal with the historical
inaccuracies that surround the May 4th shootings at Kent State University by providing
high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to
teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is
to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4
at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the
shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with
a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.

WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO
KENT?

The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the
Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American
involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States
in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the
first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding
down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the
Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30,
l970 by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack
the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a
sanctuary.

Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across
United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State
University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the
middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and
demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a
copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because
Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.

Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with
the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent
confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are
still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars
were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The
entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and
surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called
Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The
decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually
succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move
several blocks back to the campus.

The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with
other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been
dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the
Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the
events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had
been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical
revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful
that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5
p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the
Ohio National Guard.

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?

Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on
duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent.
As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The
wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the
ground that evening, with well over 1000 demonstrators surrounding the building.
Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC
building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions
in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the
burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into
the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.

Sunday, May 3rd was a day filled with contrasts.
Nearly 1000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military
war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably
with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood
was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling
campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law
would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order
declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among
both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in
which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all
rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protestors and guardsmen occurred
Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.

WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?

At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May
1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon
on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to
inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as
early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3000 people.
Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around
the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1000 people were
"cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1500
people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at
the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1
military rifles.

Substantial consensus exists that the active
participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus,
although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who
were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally
was peaceful.

WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY
4?

Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was
responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4th. At the 1975 federal civil
trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that
widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions
that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further
testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any
demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall
no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.

The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be
traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be
seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all
officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the
campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed
on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4th rally
scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.

WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the
decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by
the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was
placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the
protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry
shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and
lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell,
and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors
moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill
onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most
of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped
on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock
throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about ten minutes. Several
Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their
guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps
from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the
hill, twenty-eight of the more than seventy Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their
rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small
portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a
13 second period.

HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?

Four Kent State students died as a result of the
firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth
while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of
approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking
lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body.
William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was
shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard
in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.

Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13 second
fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on
the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of
about sixty feet; he was standing still with his middle finger extended when bullets
struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60
feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet
from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from
the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of
the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and
was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right
knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right
forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of
fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the
farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.

WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?

The most important question associated with the events
of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite
different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in
self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in
immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.

The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired
because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous
investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators
were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the
safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors
(e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more
importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the
Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the
case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that
the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to
present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury
voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This
decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new
trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.

The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in
January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28
defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the
Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The
financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the
students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any
Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial
again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National
Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of
wrongdoing:

In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not
have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their
mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the
posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse.
These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been
lawful.

Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and
anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in
danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation.
Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.

We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid
the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and
injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four
students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end
the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.

A starkly different interpretation to that of the
Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these
analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies
with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves,
1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue
that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice
football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g.,
Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy
theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts
who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion
of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing
of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary,
unwarranted, and inexcusable."

WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?

While debate still remains about the extent to which
the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can
exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings.
The 13 second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been
followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful
Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized
that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of
people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to
attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire
again, this time killing a much larger number of students.

Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a
number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble
began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with
National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged
the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about twenty
minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.

Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had
arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died
immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of
the shootings to the local hospital.

The University was ordered closed immediately, first
by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane
under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the
Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the
mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.

WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE WINNING
PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?

A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a fourteen year old runaway,
screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and
magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer
Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This
analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.

The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over
Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt
she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the
Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than
Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.

John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional
newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the
Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he
thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.

WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE
SHOOTINGS?

Three hours after the
shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When
it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new
responsibilities, their residues remaining today.

First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort
to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with
a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations.
However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter
in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were
contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of
courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of
Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award winning teacher,
gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His
graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.

Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses,
there were 1900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about
courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the
faculty as much in healing as it did students.

Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct
research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and
traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of
scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of
activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.

Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop
alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the
May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State ten days after Kent State.

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?

Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of
the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our
responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain
unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which
yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis
for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater
detail.

(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and
on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this
question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible
for setting fire to the ROTC building?

(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State
University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the
Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?

(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond
appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials
and Guard officials?

(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not
been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?

(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they
huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in
firing?

(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4,
l970?

WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT
KENT STATE?

In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The
Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this
process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly
wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."

The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for
several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy
which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found
itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary
Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as
a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State
shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that
Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with thisevent.
Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and
the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either
forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth
behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4th at Kent
State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The
Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better
ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably
already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a
caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent
State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of
four young Kent State students have not been in vain.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bills, Scott. (1988). Kent State/May 4: Echoes Through a Decade. Kent, OH:
Kent State University Press. This book provides town and gown reactions to May 4th. It has
the best annotated bibliography available on the literature on the shootings and is the
basis for

for the annotations that follow.

Casale, Ottavio M. & Paskoff, Louis (Eds.) (1971). The Kent Affair: Documents
and Interpretations . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. This is an early, useful volume which
reproduces local and national newspaper articles on the shootings as well as radio and
television broadcasts.

Davies, Peter. (1973). The Truth About Kent State: A Challenge to the American
Conscience. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. This is a detailed narrative and
analysis of the events of May 4 and their aftermath. He argues that the Guard conspired to
fire upon the students. 74 photographs are included.

Eszterhas, Joe & Roberts, Michael D. (1970). Thirteen Seconds: Confrontation at
Kent State. New York: Dodd, Mead. A very quick publication by two Cleveland
journalists who use interviews of students, faculty, and Guardsmen to provide a background
and narrative of May 1970 events.

Grant, Edward J. & Hill, Michael (1974). I Was There: What Really Went on at
Kent State . Lima, OH: C.S.S. Publishing Co. The only book written by members of the
Ohio National Guard, the authors provide a view of the hostile environment in which the
Guardsmen found themselves.

Hare, A. Paul (Ed.) (l973). Kent State: The Nonviolent Response. Haverford,
PA: Center for Nonviolent Conflict Resolution. A series of articles by noted peace
activist Paul Hare as well as many Kent State faculty members. The common theme is the
search for nonviolent approaches to conflictual situations.

Hensley, Thomas R. (1981). The Kent State Incident: Impact of Judicial Process on
Public Attitudes. Westport, CONN: Greenwood Press. This is a detailed examination of
the legal aftermath of the shootings, focusing upon the impact of various legal
proceedings on public attitudes about the shootings.

Hensley, Thomas R. and Lewis, Jerry M. (1978). Kent State and May 4th: A Social
Science Perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. This collection brings together a
number of previous articles on May 4 that were published in social science journals, but
articles covering the Kent State litigation and the 1977 gymnasium controversy were
written specifically for this volume. This book also contains the excellent analysis of
the events of May 4 written by James Best.

Kelner, Joseph and Munves, James. (1980). The Kent State Coverup . New York:
Harper and Row. Kelner was the chief legal counsel for the students and parents in the
1975 federal civil trial. He presents a harsh analysis of the handling of the trial by
Judge Donald Young. The book has a strong bias, but it provides the only detailed analysis
of this long and important trial.

Michener, James. (1971). Kent State: What Happened and Why . New York: Random
House and Reader's Digest Books. This is undoubtedly the most widely read book on May 4th
because of Michener's reputation and the wide publicity it received. The book suffers from
being produced so quickly, however, containing numerous factual errors.

Payne, J. Gregory (1981). Mayday: Kent State. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. The
book provides a rather sketchy overview of the May 4 events, presents excerpts from
letters written by participants in the events, and discusses the made-for-TV movie on May
4 to which Payne served as a consultant.

Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest. (1970) Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reprint edition by Arno Press. This remains the
best single source for understanding the events of May 4. The report examines not only the
shootings at Kent State but also the student movement of the sixties and the shootings at
Jackson State University. Excellent photographs are included.

Stone, I. F. (1971). The Killings at Kent State: How Murder Went Unpunished.
New York: Review Book. This is a rather sketchy book written with a strongly held
viewpoint that the Guardsmen committed murder.

Taylor, Stuart; Shuntlich, Richard; McGovern, Patrick; & Genther, Robert. (1971). Violence
at Kent State, May 1 to 4, l970: The Student's Perspective. New York: College Notes
and Texts, 1971. A study of the perceptions, feelings, attitudes, and reactions of Kent
State students based upon a questionnaire sent to all Kent State students shortly after
the shootings. Seven thousand students responded, and although this is not a random
sample, it has the best data available about the views of Kent State students about May 4.

Tompkins, Phillip K. and Anderson, Elaine Vanden Bout. (l971). Communication Crisis
at Kent State: A Case Study. New York: Gordon & Breach. This book presents a
harsh analysis of the communications problems that permeated the University during May
1970.

Warren, Bill (Ed.) (1970). The Middle of the Country: The Events of May 4th As Seen
byStudents & Faculty at Kent State University . A hastily compiled set
of essays put together by a Kent State University sophomore containing various reactions
to the shootings by Kent State students and faculty members.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Best, James J. (1978). "Kent State: Answers and Questions" in Thomas R.
Hensley and Jerry M. Lewis .) Kent State and May 4th: A Social Science Perspective
. Dubuque, IA:

Kendall/Hunt.

Haldeman, H.R. (1978). The Ends of Power. New York: Times Books.

McNamara, Robert. (1995). In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam.
New York: Times Books.

Norton, Mary Beth; Katzman, David M.; Escott, Paul D.; Chudacoff, Howard P.; Paterson,
Thomas G.; & Tuttle, William M. (1994). A People and a Nation: A History of the
United

States. Fourth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

NOTES

1.In addition to the many
books on the Kent State shootings, numerous reports, book chapters, and articles have been
written. The most comprehensive and accurate commission investigation is The Report of
the President's Commission on Campus Unrest (1970) chaired by William W. Scranton. An
excellent book chapter on the shootings is by James J. Best (1978). The most comprehensive
bibliography on the shootings is in Bills (1988).

2. Professor Hensley, the co-author of this article, became
aware of this reference to the Kent State shootings because his daughter, Sarah, was
taking Advanced Placement United States History at Kent Roosevelt High School with Mr.
Bruce Dzeda. We thank Mr. Dzeda for reading this article and offering his reactions,
although he bears no responsibility for the ideas expressed in this article.

3. In addition to Guard
officers and enlisted men, Governor James Rhodes was also a defendant in the civil trial
and signed the statement.

PUBLISHED IN REVISED FORM BY THE OHIO COUNCIL
FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES REVIEW, VOL 34, NUMBER 1 (SUMMER, 1998) PP. 9-21